The point about teams with multiple picks was in reference to 49. It’s going to make it a lot harder for a Rocker/Hankins to fall to 49 when teams with multiple picks (and multiple pick values in their draft money) have the chance to take them before we do at 49.Originally Posted by Enscheff
I worry about that a strategy that goes in the two "big" picks at the expense of the rest of the draft this year because our depth in the lower minors is going to be non-existent due to the Coppolella scandal. I'm all for going high-buck with the first pick, but after that I think we are going to have to be more cautious than we have been in recent years. Of course, if someone falls into our laps at #49, that can change.
I'd go into it more with the understanding that if someone like Hankins falls to 49, grab him and punt the rest of the draft. If nobody like that falls, draft BPA the rest of the way.
I would absolutely not try to work out some deal trying to make him fall to 49, and I wouldn't draft this year's Anderson at 8 to save money for pick 49 either.
Pick BPA at 8. Pick BPA at 49. If it's Hankins or another high price arm at 49 try to save later cash to sign him.
JohnAdcox (05-18-2018)
The draft is about risk and high end talent. Sure, there is always the out of nowhere pick like Mike Piazza who gets drafted late and goes on to become a HoF. But that's extremely rare, playing very long odds.
The whole idea about skipping a player that you really want because his cost will mean pinching pennies later in the draft is a little weird to me.
The odds are that your impact ML players mostly (by a big margin on a % basis) come from 1 and 2 round picks. Most often, anyone not picked that high turns into a bit player at the ML level if at all. Sure, you get a lot of 4,5 and 6 round guys who bang around the upper minors for a number of years, might get a cup of coffee and certainly help the real talent out by being somewhat competent teammates. But, being overly concerned that you will miss on a real star after the first couple of rounds of the draft is a bit like worrying what you will look like when a super model comes to ask you out. So you say it could happen.
I think if you can get high end talent with 1/2 in the draft and it means that you punt rounds 4+, then so be it. You can always populate the lower minors with guys looking for a second chance from getting cut with other organizations and with cheap college seniors. If you could get Gorman and Hankins and nothing else, your talking about two guys who have at times been projected to go 1/1. Neither may ever amount to anything. But both have certain tools that are being graded at future ML star level. If both make it to the ML (or even one who becomes a star) who cares that your 4th round pick was a blind midget with a club foot?
We can sign IFA depth pieces all but one year under our penalty. Where we'll be hurt the most is in impact talent. If we can afford to do so, I'd swing for the fences on two players. I just don't necessarily see enough money to execute that strategy.
Baseball is the only sport that you don’t always take the player you want at your draft spot because of your money pool. It is really crazy when you think about it.
Jaw (05-17-2018)
One guy I think makes sense with our second round pick is LHP Luke Bartnicki from Marietta. Perfect Game has him #34 overall. He was in the PG All-American Classic, touches 94 and supposedly has a plus slider. Combining our love for Georgia players and second round HS arms, he makes sense: https://www.perfectgame.org/players/...aspx?ID=422313
"impact talent" is what we thought we were getting the year of the scandal.
i like the strategy of going after a bunch of cheaper guys.
Jaw (05-17-2018)
i don't necessarily agree with this. i think there's already some good depth there. continuing to draft well will be way more important than signing INTFA, IMO.
Keith Law's new mock is up -- http://insider.espn.com/mlb/insider/...-mock-draft-20
He has us taking Gorman at 8. Says he has heard this connection a lot "without much discussion of alternatives (yet)."
Look at our position prospects in AA and below. Probably a half dozen guys who may have a big league future. Every team has filler, but I don't want to go back to the recent era when we were filling rosters out of the independent leagues.
The loss of this years pick in June is huge too. Have to assume our next few amateur drafts won’t have high picks so we will feel the international hit even more.
I wonder if we can use some of our close to ready surplus to grab some lower level talent. Not common to trade prospects for prospects. But we might need to
Coppy
I’ve been keeping up with him since he’s going to Tech but I think he’s been sliding down draft boards FWIW.
One thing I have noticed with minor league evaluations is they do a decent enough job sussing out the really bad defenders, but tend to miss quite a bit with delineating between the average, good and excellent defenders once they reach the big leagues (as measured by DRS, UZR).
As long as reports on Riley’s defense are positive enough that he will at least stick at the position, I’m content. The real evaluation will begin once we get analytical measurements and not just the eye tests from a scout who watched Riley three games this year.
Can understand the reasoning for being hesitant, but I disagree.
For the sake of argument, let's just assume the 2019 rotation pieces are going to be Gohara, Folty, Newcomb, Soroka, Allard, Fried, in some form. Pick up McCarthy's cheaper option to have additional depth (and maybe even add another Anibal-type on the cheap if you'd like to have anoter veteran guy around) and trade Julio for lower level prospects to help fill some of that gap. Wright will be getting close, Weigel will be back later in the year, and you'll still have Sims that you can tuck away in Gwinnett. Wentz and Touki will be that much closer as well. That would give you 10 starters without having to push Weigel, Wentz, or Touki, get you a bat at #8, and a high-ceiling school arm at #49 plus prospects from a Julio deal to help fill in the lower levels.
Of course, that's completely dependent upon one of the aforementioned high school arms we'd want being available at #49. I might even go so far as to blow the entire pool on Gorman at #8 and Will Banfield at #49 if they were both there and target lower level arms in a Julio deal.
Just me though.
Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...
Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?
Putting this here as well: Red Sox prospect Jason Groome has Tommy John surgery. 2016 Draft turning into a real dud. At least in terms of the names we were tossing around at the time. Groome, Puk, Pint, Lewis....
MLB Pipeline's mock: https://www.mlb.com/news/high-school...?tid=151437456
8. Braves: Carter Stewart, RHP, Eau Gallie HS (Fla.)
Stewart had about a two-start lull, where his stuff wasn't quite as electric as it had been for most of the spring, but a strong finish could catapult him here or even a bit higher.
And Senzel has vertigo.
Their board really drops the high school bats that a lot of other sites think will go in the top ten (Gorman and Kelenic in particular). I know the strategies in the baseball draft don't mirror the approaches in other sports and hence don't center on need, but it sure would be nice if the Braves could find a reliable bat or two in this draft.
Baseball America mock behind a paywall: https://www.baseballamerica.com/rank...lb-mock-draft/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote